On Sat, Mar 20, 2004 at 04:45:05PM -0500, Alexander Winston wrote: > On Thu, 2004-03-18 at 20:03 -0800, Matt Kraai wrote: > > > On Tue, Mar 09, 2004 at 03:20:14PM +0100, Jens Seidel wrote: > > > Index: vote/2000/leadership_debate/transcript.wml > > > =================================================================== > > > RCS file: > > > /cvs/webwml/webwml/english/vote/2000/leadership_debate/transcript.wml,v > > > retrieving revision 1.5 > > > diff -u -u -r1.5 transcript.wml > > > --- vote/2000/leadership_debate/transcript.wml 18 Jan 2003 13:21:53 > > > -0000 1.5 > > > +++ vote/2000/leadership_debate/transcript.wml 9 Mar 2004 14:13:09 > > > -0000 > > > @@ -117,7 +117,7 @@ > > > Generally, better communication should prevent this sort of thing though > > > - and I think that's very important. > > > > > > <p><b>Ben:</b> > > > - I think I differ in my assesment of the "new maintainer fallout" in > > > that I think it deals more generally with some core issues in our > > > structure... > > > + I think I differ in my assessment of the "new maintainer fallout" > > > in that I think it deals more generally with some core issues in our > > > structure... > > > <br><b>Ben:</b> > > > after talking to a couple of people involved with new maintainer I > > > was shown that they were basically asking for help quite a while before > > > they decided to close > > > asking for help indirectly, but still, they asked > > > > I don't want to change quotes, so I didn't fix this. > > Matt, you can probably replace "assesment" with "[assessment]" safely.
I looked up quotations in the Chicago Manual of Style, and it said that obvious typographical errors should be silently corrected. I've corrected the spelling of "assessment" and I drop my opposition to further such changes. -- Matt Kraai [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://ftbfs.org/
